They do Exist!

There are, thank God, some Republicans who are interested in trying to get a grip on spending. It's hard to imagine that Ronald Reagan's party has surrendered to the idea that they can buy the public's affection the way that they have.
Denny Rehberg has said that as a member of the Republican Study Commission that he is working on ways to cut spending. This just before he was trumpeting some $6 Million that he brought to Montana. I will see at the end of the week whether he is serious or just trying to blow me off.
Dave, get ready, we will be needing you if he does.

Update
As shown here there are more than a few people who have had it with pork.
A good reason to be against pork is also located here. to decide that a federal building needs a $60 million garden, more than people need AIDs medecine is insulting.
Time for a Revolution.

Good CBS review of Conservative Infighting

In the article above, the author makes some very good points. But my favorite is the one about it being a battle of ideas. Contrast that with the Democratic infighting, and you see that Republicans are more interested in ideas, and the Democrats with gaining power.

Number 2000

Well, after days of waiting, the anti war crowd has finally gotten their magic number. I am sure that many of them are regretting that he had to die in a hospital and not in some fiery explosion, detonated by their "freedom fighters."
I understand that many anti war groups are going to be having parties to celebrate this milestone. And all I can say is, they are totally unworthy of being in the same room, much less earning the respect that these young men and womem who have shown their valor and courage so many times over.
When you are in combat, the worst thing in the world is the total arbitrariness, and random luck that goes on around you. I always felt upset when someone was shooting in my general direction, but found it particuarly insulting to think that I may be hit by some idiot who wasn't even aiming at me, but missed his target and hit me instead. Not to mention those days when you think that this is the one. The one I won't get out of in one piece. You just know that your luck has run out. But still you go on, and more than 99 times out of 100 you were wrong, and thank your lucky stars.
Too many of my fellow citizens only have knowledge of the military from Oliver Stone or Michael Moore. They think that we were or are just the dregs of society without any motivation or ambition of our own, or just trying to escape from poverty. The condescending attitude that they demostrate is just one more insult that we were forced to take and keep our mouths shut.
The soldiers who are there deserve more than just being considered a pawn in the anti's war against George Bush. They are doing more to change the world than the anti war crowd will ever be able to accomplish. Everyone of them knows that they are mortal, as we all are, but speaking personally, I am sure that they too would rather believe that if they have to die, and no one wants to, that their death will have some meaning. To pull out before the job is done will mean that 2000 soldiers will have been robbed of any meaning to their deaths. I really hope that no one would be so selfish. Unfortunately, too many people hate George Bush so much, they are willing to rob better people than they of any meaning in their lives and their deaths.
For shame.

Lies and WMDs

It has become an article of faith, that the issue of WMDs were solely created by the Bush administration to justify having a war for oil. (It worked so well, we are just drowning in cheap oil right now.)
But the truth is, as shown in the above link that everyone believed the Iraqis had WMDs and were working specifically on some sort of nuke. Clinton bombed Iraq for 4 days because he believed that they had WMDs
So, the next time someone starts yelling "Bush lied, people died" point them to this analysis, and clarify for them that while they may be mistaken, they can correct the mistake. If on the other hand they persist, tell the world what liars they really are.

The Plame Kerfluffle

Barone has a good take on this. I find it ironic that a story that deals with leaks is fueled entirely by leaks. But the real problem is that the laws that were supposed to be the basis for "Perp walking" Rove and Libby out of the White House do not apply. Instead, there may be prosecution for perjury about a non-crime.
I know that the Left has adopted Amb. Wilson as some sort of savant who bravely opposed the Bush administration in its march to war. Of course, Wilson, as the Senate Intelligence Committee found, is a terrific liar. The only way to ignore this, is to have such hatred and bile that you overlook the facts in your attempts to destroy your enemy.
I heard counselling can help with this problem. I highly recommend giving it a try.

Racism and Racists

The link above is particuarly disturbing when you contrast it with the uproar over Bill Bennett's hypothetical. I suppose that it is excused because the speaker in the link above is Black. So, we can never hold Black people to any standard of decent behavior, because of all of the trauma that Black people have suffered.
Hmmm, I don't suppose that that would be racists now would it? Let's see, if you ascribe a lack of responsibility to act in a decent manner because of their skin color, that to me would be racist.
When I was in my last tour in Germany, I shared an office with the head of the Junior NAACP in Europe. He told me that all white people were racists because they benefit from a society that rewards white people at the expense of Black ones. I pointed out to him that there were more poor white people than Black ones, and to categorically assign a trait or action to all people of a certain color is racist in itself. He then told me that Black people can't be racists. At that point I had to gieve up. What can you say to such an argument?

Tom Delay Arraignment

Bill Clinton was always blessed with enemies who were so obsessed with trying to bring him down that they invariably acted stupidly. Seems as though Tom Delay's enemies are no diferent. His booking photo is a prime example. With his goofy grin, who do you think would rather use it in a campaign brochure, Democrats or Republicans?
Then to top it off, after the DA shops around, and then brow beats a grand jury into submission, he gets an indictment for something that wasn't a crime when it occurred. In embarassment, he has to refile a new charge, in which the allegation is based on a document that he doesn't have. Then, the final act in this farce, he selects a judge who gave money to MoveOn.org.
At a news conference afterwards, Ronny Earle says that if a judge gives money to Crimestoppers, he would not be expected to recuse himself from a burglary case. True, but a burglar is in an illegal activity. So far, at least, being a Republican is not yet illegal. A better example, would be a judge who is going to try a member of the Black Panther party, and the judge had recently donated to the KKK. You can see where the defendant may not think that the judge will be impartial.
I am amazed at how stupid Ronny Earle is in this matter. He has all of the wit and intelligence of a bulldog, undeterred by a smarter enemy, he forges ahead, undaunted by the facts or the evidence, never mind the perception. Tom Delay is going to win this, and in the long term, make every Democratic accusation of criminal behavior look like naked partisanship whether valid or not.
If I was Ronny Earle, I would have just gone after the two minions of Delay, and left him alone until I could get a coerced agreement to have one of the defendants testify against him. Even that is problematic, since a turncoat is rarely trusted by anyone.
Having opened the door to criminalizing political conduct, I wonder if Ms. Pirro will now indict Sen. Schumer for violations of the federal credit act. Maybe not, maybe the Republicans will act like adults, even while the Democrats don't.

Iraqi vote

I started looking for coverage of the Iraqi vote starting Friday night, and after the football games. There was really very little about what is one of the most historic actions in the Middle East. Perhaps if there had been more car bombs or beheadings, then it would have warranted more coverage.
In a country that just three years ago had a policy to reward children who rat out their parents for less than patriotic feelings, it is incredible that a people who had been so successfully cowed for so long, are actually taking part in deciding their country's future.
I will admit, that there was a period of time lately, when I was beginning to wonder if we would actually see this through. I lnow that Bush's popularity drops will cause many politicians to reconsider what we are doing there, but I also believe that Bush is more likely to stick it through to the end.
If almost 2000 deaths are to mean anything, we need to finish the job.
God bless the Iraqi people.

Howard Dean vs. Letterman

I haven't seen this anywhere else, and because it was right before I went to sleep, it may have been a dream. But last Wednesday night, Howard Dean was on the Late Show with David Letterman. I asn't all that excited, but my wife (the good Democrat) was excited to see the leader of her party.
The amusing thing about the interview, was that Dave (whose humor I usually find sophmoric.) did not do a softball interiew. When Dean started going on about how evil Republicans were, and the "culture of corrouption" Dave told him "It sounds like you are just spouting slogans, what are the Democrats going to do?" Dean seemed at a loss that anyone in the entertainment industry would actually not agree with him immediately.
The funniest part of the interview though, was when Dean was going on about Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Frist et.al., and Dave asked him "But there are Democrats who have broken the law too, are you going to go after them?" And there was this long pregnant pause that became very uncomfortable. You could imagine Howard Dean asking himself why he went on that show.

Denny replies!!

After my post about my letter to Denny, I had given up on hearing from him. Which kind of surprised me, that our elected representatives would be dismissive about a constituent's concerns.
Here is Denny's reply:

Thanks so much for communicating to me your thoughts and concerns about
runaway government spending. I have to admit, you're absolutely right
about the need for fiscal sanity, and especially about reasserting
fiscal responsibility as one of the "watchwords for the Republican Party" as
you rightly put it.

While it's easy to lose sight of this important principle, especially
after a pair of expensive natural disasters, I think you'll agree that
we can pay for the huge cost of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by trimming
our bloated government. As a member of the fiscally-conservative
Republican Study Committee, I'm working with House leadership to help craft a
plan that would offset disaster spending, as well as increase
reductions in mandatory spending from $35 billion to at least $50 billion and
eliminate duplicative, wasteful and unnecessary programs. It's something
Ronald Reagan told us twenty years ago that still rings true today,
when he called for "returning to the people and to state and local
governments responsibilities better handled by them."

While Katrina and Rita have certainly made many sit up and take notice
of runaway government spending, I have been beating the spending
reduction drum since being elected to Congress. I have pressed the House of
Representatives to adopt spending reductions until we get a handle on
our deficit. In your letter you mention "rain forest museums in Iowa" and
"bridges in Alaska" as evidence of the need to develop a set of
spending priorities for our nation. You'll be pleased to know that I not only
agree with your premise, but I've put it into action. I have joined a
group of fiscally conservative colleagues in an effort to persuade House
GOP leadership to agree to a moratorium on all non-defense related
spending "earmarks" for the coming fiscal year in order to give us the
opportunity to get our spending priorities straight. Additionally, as a
co-sponsor of the Family Budget Protection Act, I'm fighting to decrease
the limit on the public debt by $2 trillion. This legislation is
important because it also establishes a reserve fund for emergencies, while at
the same time setting up a commission to eliminate waste, fraud, and
abuse.

However, I can tell you, reducing spending is no easy task as there are
many in Washington who believe we aren't spending enough taxpayer
money. For example, a few of us in the House had to work overtime to defeat
several alternative budget proposals that would have increased spending
in 2006 alone by $78 billion, hiked taxes by almost $70 billion and, on
top of that, would have eliminated over $17 billion in spending
reductions. As you can see, fiscal conservatives not only have to push
initiatives to reduce deficits but we also have to ward off dramatic increases
in spending and taxes.

These, then, are a few of my thoughts about bringing fiscal sanity back
to the federal spending process. Thanks again for contacting me. Keep
in touch.

I had previously received a phone call from one of his assistants,and asked him to send Denny's reply in writing so that I could add it to the blog. During the phone call, his rep told me that the problem was that there are too many Democrats and liberal Republicans who were unwilling to constrain spending. That is just so much Bu**. In the House particularly, the majority can exercise its will with less impediment than in the Senate. Plus, I am tired of hearing excuses. When I was in the Army, the phrase was "When in charge, take charge." The Republicans are in charge, and they need to do something about out of control federal spending. If I wanted to have someone buy my vote, I would just vote Democratic. But because I see an obligation to my children, and protecting my country, I am not going to go with strict self interest.
I pointed out to the caller that Denny had to be moving up the ranks in seniority, and thus, should be able to influence the leadership more. He told me that Denny has only been in office for 6 years. True, with the incumbent protection act, otherwise known as campaign reform, he is not the most senior. However, One man with courage makes a majority. I am looking for the courageous majority to be elected.

This is scary!

What can you say, when your professional capabilities are not in question, but your commitment to "social diversity" and "tolerance" will prevent you from getting an education or necessary certification?
It is always interesting when one group decides to apply the reprehensible tactics of their opponents and justify their use, "because we are good, but they are bad." McCarthy and facisim are bad, but the use of PDEs are good.
I guess that I would be considered intolerant of Nazis, racists and murdering thugs. But because I indiscriminatly lump all people who are racists and murdering thugs together, instead of just the politically correct ones, I am intolerant according to this view.
I can live with that. The question is, can they live with their conscience?

On turning 50

I have been lax in posting, because of the demands of my real life. My profession seems to be of the sort that has peaks and valleys of work. When I am busy, I am really busy, and my clients deserve all of my attention. When I am slow, I get a chance to think, which is something that is really important. I cannot imagine what life would be like if every day I showed up to hang the same left hand door on the same car in the same way every damned day. Talk about stultifying.
Today, I am 50. I have lived nearly 0.25% of all the time since the birth of Christ. I have been to several county fairs, a fair share of rodeos, 27 countries and one war. I have raised three wonderful children, and buried one wife, divorced another and am married to a woman who has that primary quality that I seek: she puts up with me.
As a former soldier, my needs are simple. So long as I am warm, dry, well fed and not being shot at, my life is really good, and everything else is gravy. I sometimes wonder about those people who are constantly unhappy. What is the purpose of life, if everything sucks?
Being half a century kind of focuses the mind on your own mortality. When you are young, you are invincible. You are wrong of course, and it is only the experience of attending funerals which begins to make you aware that you are mortal.
Another aspect of being older, is that you appreciate being alone, well at least I do. As a criminal defense attorney, I operate alone. Just me and the client against the awesome power of the State, as represented by the guy with the gun and the badge, and the morally perfect prosecutor. I enjoy the battle, because when I win, the victory is mine alone. But when I lose, the failure is also mine alone. I like to ride motorcycles for the same reason. I am alone, all of the choices are mine, and the results are mine, even if they involve a head on with a logging truck.
I guess that what I am getting to is that question: Am I a member of the body politic, or am I an individual who has an interest in politics? Are we as individuals part of a greater whole, or stand alone entities that come together when we choose for our benefit?
I am now officially old, and the truth is, that I don't know the answers anymore. Hell, I am not even sure that I know any of the questions anymore.

She still doesn't get it.

Mary Mapes, the producer for the Bush National Guard "Fake but Accurate" story is coming out with a book that blames conservative bloggers. She claims that within minutes of the story airing, that the bloggers were on the attack. For such a smart person, how can she be so dumb? The story was hyped for weeks before it was aired. Then too, there is a difference in time zones as to when the show was aired. Her "minutes after" was actually two hours after it was shown on the East coast.
Not once does she address the fundamental problems with the story, the formatting, typeset, source or anything else.
It is wierd to watch people wallow in self pity on a national stage.

Why we need new candidates for public office.

As noted below, I am attempting to recruit Dave Budge to run against Denny Rehberg in the primary this year. No, this is not just because Denny has refused to answer my plea to him to rein in spending. Rather, it is because the politicians at the national level, but especially the Republican leadership in the Congress have disowned the most basic tenets of limited government and fiscal restraint.
I suppose that he could be run on a Libertarian ticket, but let's face it, most Libertarians are not going to support a failed cause. No, the trick here is to return the Republican party to its true roots.
I know Tracy Velazquez who is running on the Democratic ticket to unseat Burns has promoted the same concepts. I would support her, but I am afraid that the pressures of the Democratic party leadership would compel her to go along. Think Marjorie M. Margolis, what you don't remember her? She was the freshman congresswoman who voted in favor of the tax increase of 1993, and lost her seat immediately thereafter. A lesson that career politicians never fail to note.
The other problem that I have is with the Democratic party's idea that wealth equaliztion is such an important issue. My issue with the wealth inequality is, suppose tomorrow that we could equalize everyone's wealth to the exact same level. Within in a week, someone would have more, and some would have less due to hard work, luck, sloth, whatever. So, a week later what do we do? Do we re-equalize them again? And if we do, do we reward failure or sloth? Wealth redistribution will never work, and that is why I cannot be in support of a Democrat.
No, what we need are candidates who are willing to serve if elected, and happy to go back to their lives if not. We need people willing to set and enforce priorities for spending, and not just try to buy their own reelection. Men and women who recognize that we are in trouble now, and need drastic measures that will create a lot of pain. Unpleasant, yes, but very, very real. While at the same time, it is doable.
We also need to send a message throughout the blogosphere that more such candidates are needed. If enough responsible citizens stand up and reclaim politics for the people and not for the politicans, we may come closer to utopia.
The time is now, the need is here. Dave Budge for Congress.

Update apparently, the Republican party leadership is not so happy with anyone challenging orthodoxy as seen here.

Time to Revive the Revolution

After receiving no word from my Congressional representatives on my urging them to cut out the pork, I am thoroughly disgusted with them all. I know that they are against offering up any projects because they are "necessary." Yeah right, like a parking garage in Bozeman is going to determine the future of Western civilization.
It is time to look for new people who, even if they lose, will force the incumbents to get off being stuck on stupid.
I am looking for a strong fiscal conservative who will run against Denny on the primary ballot. I want someone who will say that we have a responsibility to bring our fiscal house into order, and nice to have projects like bike paths, rain forest museums and bridges to nowhere will have to wait.
I think that I will nominate Dave Budge (Sorry Dave, but it's like not attending the meeting that names someone for a good cause. You have to attend to decline). Dave has the right attitutde about this sort of things, and is thoughtful, intelligent, and adept with dealing with idiots (Larry the Environmental Deranger), so he should do fine in Congress.
Let's all go to Dave's place and tell him he needs to run.

UPDATE Okay, Dave is being reluctant, which is to be expected by anyone who has a real life. But Dammit people, we are taking about civic responsibility here. We have a need for citizen legislators not professional politiicians. I am willing to pledge $500 to his filing fee. Anyone else want to help?? Your future is at stake here.

Why Miers?

I was surprised by the pick of Harriet Miers to take O'Conner's seat, but after watching the reaction from the Left and Right, I have developed a theory.
Suppose Bush wants a quick confirmation, he goes with someone that Harry Ried and others are willing to accept. No fuss, no muss, and his bud who is the White House Counsel gets rewarded for years of diligent service.
Now, suppose that the Democrats decided to object to her. A certain amount is to be expected, because they are playing to their base. But if anything comes up to call the confirmation into question, Bush digs in, ala Bolton, Rogers-Brown and Owen. Then, because of lack of support on the Right, and opposition on the Left, Miers withdraws, and Bush goes with a Luttig.
He can offer that he has made an effort at consensus and was rejected. Therefore, screw you, here comes the hard core.
Okay, maybe too complicated, but that is what I have to do for a living, think about what else it could be.

Plame affair revisited

Excellent analysis of the whole Plame kerfluffle that raises some interesting questions. I am interested in finding out what Fitzgerald is going after, since the commonly held theories don't make any sense.

Ethics and Politics

This article from National Review is rather revealing. Apparently, after 5 failed attempts with other grand juries, the persecutor, I mean prosecutor has finally gotten his ham sandwich. Looking at just the indictment, there is not a case there for conspiracy. So, why proceed? Because he knows that most people cannot sort out the difference between indictment and conviction.
Although much has been made of his bi-partisan indictments by including Democrats, that may not be as helpful as it is made out. Apparrently, the only Democrats that he has persued are his own political enemies.
If this was just about good government, which it is not, why not also indict the Democratic Party of Texas for engaging in exactly the same behavior? The really curious thing to me, is that this persecutor has shaken down thte supposed corporate groups who gave money and forced them to give money to his pet project in Stanford, which is run by a close friend.
If Democrats were really serious about good government, they would be all over Cong. William Jefferson of Louisiana, and even Nancy Pelosi herself, for the actions of her suboridinates. I know her defense (and it is a credible one) is that she never knew. Heck, she doesn't know much period.
No, this just reinforces that this is nothing more than politics as usual. I just know how all of the Democrats who are gloating right now will be rushing to the microphones to say that they believed in the presumption of innocence when the case against Delay is dismissed. Yeah, right.

E Ring

Okay, I am not qualified to be a TV critic. Wait a minute, almost everything sucks, so maybe I am qualified. However, I watched the E Ring expecting it to be another Hollywood botchup of the military. Instead, it was pretty good for TV. You have to know about the military today to really understand that what they are doing is pretty accurate, although the faux sexual tension is unnecessary. I did enjoy watching the Green Berets doing an Aussie rappel down the face of a building while shooting the terrorists. There is something really exciting about running face down a building toward the ground while shooting.
Shoot makes me want take up the standard again, although the Army officer in charge of bringing back retirees says that I will be going right after the women and children.

A letter to Denny

There has arisen a large number of people who are looking to Congress to recommend cuts in programs in order to finance the reconstruction of the Katrina damaged areas and the War on Terrorism. I sent the following to Denny Rehberg:

Dear Congressman Rehberg. I am writing to ask that you support the rollback of expenditures that are not immediately necessary, in order to provide the funds for the reconstruction of the Gulf States, and to further support the War on Terror.
I realize that it is going to be hard, but there are other congressmen out there who are willing to pony up some projects. Your future opponent has volunteered the parking garage in Bozeman, and should you decide not to support cutting these programs, I will begin to serioulsly consider her candidacy.
We need to put a stop to rain forest museums in Iowa, and bridges in Alaska that will save commuters $6 until such time as we can afford it. I encourage you to take the lead in devising a list of priorities that would list what we must spend in accordance with the law, what we want to spend to support the highest national priorities, and what we do not need now, but could be supported later.
Fiscal responsibility has always been one of the watchwords for the Republican Party. I would hope that you would take the lead in reasserting this watchword, and restore fiscal sanity to our budget until such time as we can right our finances and reduce our debt.
I appreciate your taking the time to consider my opinion, and look forward to your response of what you would recommend for cuts.

Sincerely,

I hope that I hear back from him. More of the same will be sent to Max and Conrad. We all need to start demanding that our elected representatives start to set priorities and limits. Right now, everything is a priority, and there are no limits.

Update One day later, and no response. Maybe more of us need to be saying the same thing. Something that I noticed about our Congressional delegation is that Max's office is the worst for getting help or even a response, and Conrad's is the best. Denny seems to be waiting to see which way the wind blows.

Update again. I guess that this will teach me for refusing to give money to politicians. Denny has completely blown me off. Zip. Zilch, Nada. No response, not even a I really care, but not really answer.

I am looking for a tough as nails candidate now to give money to who will work to remove all unncessary expenditures until we get this fiscal mess under control. Any suggestions?

Katrina, Truth and possible racism on my part.

I will admit that when I first heard the stories, or read them on line about rapes, murder and mayhem that was going on in New Orleans post Katrina, I did accept them unquestionably. In fact, I remember thinking at the time that there seems to be a very thin veneer of civilization for people when the situation becomes deperate.
Apparently, the news was too busy reporting rumors and innuendo to be bothered with actually doing any investigation. I am ashamed to admit that I thought that it was possible that what was reported was going on. I am even more ashamed to admit that once again I was taken in by the mass media. Fool me once...

Update As shown here, most everything that I heard about the terrible conditions has proven false. Now, where did I get my information? Did I get it from rumor mongers on the streets? Nope. How about e-mails from friends who were there? Nope. Got it all from the Main Stream Media. Boy do I feel dumb. What else have they gotten completely wrong? Oh yeah, Iraq.

Mary Mapes and bloggers

Mary Mapes, the producer for Dan Rather who did the segment on the Bush National Guard papers is eviscerated here. The funny thing is that she still doesn't get it. That bloggers are very rarely reporters, but they are excellent editors. Now, if only Mapes could get one good editor, she wouldn't have had the problem that she does regarding partisan behavior masquarading as "journalism."
Update Here it seems that Dan Rather still believes that the story is true. That it was only partisan bloggers who somehow managed to change the story to him. Talk about ego. Let's see. 1. I am Dan Rather, I am always right, 2. If you disagree with me you are wrong. 3. If you get away with it, then it is just partisanship. I am not partisan, see premise number 1.
It must be lovely in Dan's reality.

Another Update in which Dan Rather wants to continue to investigate the National Guard papers, but CBS won't let him. What is the term for watching someone slowly self destruct, yet wroking happily at their own demise? I forget.

An Opinion from Someone Who is There.

While mere presence at an event does not necessarily give credence over those who are not there, this is an excellent piece by a Marine serving in Iraq, that makes many of the points that I have made before.
1. We cannot be defeated militarily.
2. The only way to lose this war is to concede to the terrorists.
3. The ability of Iraq to actually become something more than a terrorists state is way underreported.

A solution to the "Roberts" Problem

Many Democrats are now saying that they will not vote to confirm Judge Roberts, "because he hasn't answered all of our questions." This is disingenuous at best, or, stupid at worst. A judge cannot be asked to answer how they will rule on a matter that may come before them, since the lawyers for the side that the judge would rule against can claim bias and ask that the judge be recused. Although, who do you appeal to if a member of the Supreme Court won't recuse themselves?
My solution, is to take already settled cases, and ask the nominee if they agree or disagree with the holding of the majority and why? Some easy ones would be Roe, or Casey v. Planned Parenthood, and Kehoe. My favorite, particuarly in light of the author of the opinions, would be trying to reconcile the disparities in the University of Michigan cases. Why is it okay to admit the son of a black dentist over the daughter of a white sharecropper to the undergrad university, but improper to examine the race of an applicant to the law school? What is the basis for allowing discrimination for 25 more years, and what happens at the end of that time if there still is discrimination.

Scalia and Art

In a spech at Julliard, Scalia basically reiterated my point that the government does not censor, that which it does not want to pay. The idea that refusal to pay for certain crappy art is censorship, is to imply that every crappy artist has a right to government funding.
It is a curious world, that an avant garde artiste should become a government employee. If they are paid for more than the work of a GS-4, they are ripping us off.

Roberts Hearings

One of my many problems in my area of pracitce, are people who think that they are geniuses, even when they are not. Watching the Senate confirmation hearings just reinforces that truism. Sen. Kennedy has tried a few good set ups, but seems flustered when Roberts avoids his clever traps.
I think that Roberts is a damned good lawyer, and will make a good SC Chief Justice. I suppose that the Kennedys, Durbins, Schumers and Leahys will play to their base, and everyone will call themselves a winner.
Ain't politics grand?

Good News from Iraq

I have always read Chrenkoff's posts, but not linked to them. Now that he is leaving, it seems as though others will be taking up the slack. Damned good thing too. We need to be fully informed, not controlled by our media.

A discusion with Wulfgar

Wulfgar and I have been having a discussion over at Left in the West. I am realizing that it is taking up too much for Matt's site, so I have decided to move it here:
Earlier, in a response to Squid, Wulfgar said:

# Wulfgar Says:

Squid, don’t you find something inherantly dangerous about having a lame duck President … 3 years before he leaves office … in war time? For all your tough talk about respecting the military, stances like the one you profess here proves that you really hate the troops, only slightly less than you hate Democrats.
# Squid Says:
September 9th, 2005 at 6:03 pm

Hey, I’m just stating a fact. You democrats can’t nominate one decent candidate, so you leave us with absolutely no choice at all. I voted for Ross Perot and helped elect Clinton, so I damn sure wasn’t going to vote for either Gore or Kerry. I totally disagree with Bush and his spending habits, ala shades of the democratic party that they are, and his failure to address the border situation is a disaster. I do agree with his position on terrorism and had Gore or Kerry been elected we’d still be taking it in the shorts from the radicals of Islam who can smell the odor of pacifism even with their noses in the sand. Your statement that I hate the troops is asinine and deserves no response, but here’s mine anyway. The vast majority of those serving believe in their mission, in Iraq, and I support them. They’re all volunteers and as much as the democrats(politicos)say they support our troops, they’re secretly hoping for their failure for the political advantage they anticipate will follow. The American people are not stupid, even though the democrats treat them as if they are. They will reject your next candidate for the presidency unless a miracle happens to the democratic party platform. And as they say in Japan, at least when I was there, neva happen boysan. Neva happen with the likes of Howard Dean and his ilk in charge.
. . . .
Then Wulfgar said:

Squid, you completely avoid the accusation, which I mean with all seriousness. If you support a lame duck president against any accusation (which you did right in this very post) then youi support an incompetant leading our fighting men and women inthe field. Well done. You hate our soldiers, and the proof is right here.

# Squid Says:
September 10th, 2005 at 10:32 pm

Wulfgar, you are hopeless. You’re on the wrong side and know it and you attempt to transfer your negativity of the war effort to those who support it. I admit I support GWB’s policy against terrorism, but I’ll also admit that Bush doesn’t go far enough in bringing this Iraq campaign to a conclusion by utilizing what ever means it takes. This I attribute to his appeasment of the pacifists in both the republican and democratic parties. That being said, I will continue to believe that this country is far far better off with him at the helm instead of either Gore or Kerry or for that matter any of the other candidates that the democratic party has chosen to consider for the presidency.

I will not support accusations until they are proven to be justifiable. The bull**t the democrats throw up against the wall, time and time again, hoping upon hope that one or more might stick, have not been proven to be justifiable so why in the hell would I support them.

Lastly, George Bush is not leading our troops in the field. Others have that responsibilty and even if he was, I’d rather have him there instead of someone who requested and was awarded a Purple Heart for having rice fragments penetrate his rear end.
# Steve Says:
September 11th, 2005 at 9:27 pm

Wulfgar, you are starting to sound like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass. By your logic, if you oppose Bush, and are encouraging the terrorists to blow up Americans soldiers, then you are supporting the troops.
As a former troop, I would prefer that you not help.
# Wulfgar Says:
September 12th, 2005 at 8:00 am

Then Wulfgar said:

Former troop or not, Steve, your preference is hardly of any concern to me. What is is your poor understanding of logic, as well as survival of our combat forces. My logic is very simple and very clear: an incompetant CIC, who behaves as a lame duck (acts based on his non-concern for re-election, which is exactly what Squid favored) will hurt our troops. Supporting an incompetant CIC is, therefore, clearly anti-troops. That a rah-rah jingoist like Squid doesn’t understand that doesn’t surprise me at all. You, on the other hand, by pulling specious arguments from your butt surprise me quite a bit.

In no argument I have ever given, nor any that has ever been proven does opposing Bush = encouraging terrorists to blow up American soldiers. And obviously, encouraging terrorists to blow up American soldiers != supporting the troops. So, your conclusion may be valid, if only one is goofy enough to believe the stupid premise you propose. Doesn’t it make much much more sense to posit that electing a competant CIC, who actually gives a crap in his final term in office, is a necessary condition for supporting the troops? Seems pretty clear to me. Why doesn’t it to you?
# Steve Says:
September 12th, 2005 at 3:26 pm

Wulfgar, I usually admire your reasoning, even if I do disagree, however, let me expand upon my premise.
The terrorists cannot win militarily, period. They are incapable of sustained military action that can drive us from the battlefield. Therefore, the only way that they can defeat us is to attack our will. In order to attack that, they exploit our communications systems, primarily television news. They make attacks that accomplish little militarily, but are designed to demoralize the American public. Those who succumb to the demoralization will bring pressure upon political leaders to end the war without a satisfactory military conclusion. Therefore, if you oppose the war, you are an instrument of the terrorists.
Now, let’s say that you in particular were to say “I oppose Bush, but the only way to end the war is to create a stable and freely democratic government that will allow us to withdraw when they have taken over their security.” This would prevent the terrorists from hoping that domestic opinion would be swayed and they would have to face the reality that they are not going to win.
I suppose that this will be considered rah-rah or jingoistic, but I don’t see an alternative. Since 1979 in Iran, ‘83 in Lebanon, ‘93 in Somalia, etc., we have presented the confusing image that we are unwilling to sustain a presence that is in our national interest. I am sure that there are many in the Middle East who have expected us to bug out a long time ago. However, we need to put a stop to that now, so that we won’t have to do this again. I know that you think Bush is incompetent, but I think that this could very well be the greatest geo-strategic move since the Monroe doctrine, and we couldn’t even enforce that at the time that it was enunciated.

September 12th, 2005 at 6:24 pm

The terrorists cannot win militarily, period.

Incorrect assumption, the first. They can win militarily if they can escalate the conflict beyond the reach of our resources or our resolve to commit immoral acts. We can win this thing today, by nuking the whole of Iraq. Is that winning? Are the bleeding and deseased remainders afforded the sweet sweet gravy of democracy? Or have we simply succeeded in destroying what Saddam could not? Yay us.

In the meantime, 1 billion muslims will watch our actions. Do you think we can win that war? Really?

Therefore, the only way that they can defeat us is to attack our will.

Incorrect assumption, the second. They can win by getting us to behave as immorally as they themselves do, or more immorally that the American people (who last I checked, still control our government) are willing to accept. They want to win, and are willing to kill every man, woman and child in Iraq (or elsewhere) to do that. We can win, if we’re willing to do the same (and impoverish our own while doing so). A victory of will? Putting oneself on the inevitable path of destruction, to claim a specious point? Excuse me? When was cutting off your nose to spite your face considered moral? When was sacrifising your children for your sense of (arrogant, prideful, the first sin) will an act of a “good people”?

They make attacks that accomplish little militarily, but are designed to demoralize the American public.

Incorrect assumption, the third. Which is more demoralizing, the thought that the media might show us bad stuff? Or the sure and certain knowledge that our own government, supposedly of, by and for the people, lied us into a war, and continues to do so until this very day? You can blame the Islamofascists for lying to us about their strength, but I will be far more horrified that my government did the same exact fricking thing. There was absolutely no reason, regarding national defense, that we invaded Iraq. None.

However, we need to put a stop to that now, so that we won’t have to do this again. I know that you think Bush is incompetent, but I think that this could very well be the greatest geo-strategic move since the Monroe doctrine

I would likely agree with you … if this had been performed even modestly honestly or competantly. It wasn’t. Our greatest threat in the ME remains Saudi Arabia … period.

And you still haven’t proven what you claim to be true …
that claiming that the CIC is incompetant is a support for the terrorists. It isn’t. For your argument to work, you must be able to show this, clearly. You can’t. Claiming that we have an incompetant CIC is quite obviously *NOT* a support for terrorists. It’s a statement of opinion (in my mind, fact). It doesn’t provide any foundation, at all, for your further argument that iopposition to Bush = encouragement of terrorists. None. Notta. Zip.

A question: When you swear alligience, do you swear to a king, or a flag and a country for which it stands? Just askin’? ‘Cause if you posit that discent against the CIC is anti-American, we might as well have a fricking king. Get it, yet?

Okay, maybe I should start with the beginning.

When Wulfgar said "Squid, don’t you find something inherantly dangerous about having a lame duck President … 3 years before he leaves office … in war time? For all your tough talk about respecting the military, stances like the one you profess here proves that you really hate the troops, only slightly less than you hate Democrats."

It raises concerns on many levels. 1. Does any lame duck president escape this charge? If so, why? 2. The comment that Squid proves his hatred for the troops would be objectionable because it assumes facts not in evidence, is inflamatory, and generally unworthy of response. 3. Maybe Squid just disagrees with Democrats, does that actually mean he hates them? I don't know Squid, but I would be willing to wager a cup of coffee that Wulfgar doesn't either.

When Wulfgar said in response to Squid: "Squid, you completely avoid the accusation, which I mean with all seriousness. If you support a lame duck president against any accusation (which you did right in this very post) then youi support an incompetant leading our fighting men and women inthe field. Well done. You hate our soldiers, and the proof is right here."

I renew mhy objections above. But, as to his accusation that Bush is incompetent, I know that it is considered an article of faith that Bush is incompetent among the so called intelligentsia and Democrats in general. However, to test a theory, you don't look to prove your theory, you look to disprove it. I would offer as evidence to disprove it, that Bush has pretty well gotten everything that he has said that he wanted with the exception of Social Security reform, and contrary to some opinions, I don't think that is is dead yet. As to the proof being "right there" I must be too obtuse to see anything but an assertion, without supporting facts.

When Wulfgar said: "Supporting an incompetant CIC is, therefore, clearly anti-troops. That a rah-rah jingoist like Squid doesn’t understand that doesn’t surprise me at all. You, on the other hand, by pulling specious arguments from your butt surprise me quite a bit." Okay, taking this one at a time. First, the assertion that Bush is incompetent, is just that, and as noted above open for dispute. So, if Wulfgar's assertion is found to be false, is not the rest false as well? Second, I repeat that making an assertion is not a fact. If the argument is specious, how so specifically? Is it because I disagree with you that I make specious arguments? Usually Wulfgar is above that, except when he becomes angry.

Then we get to the fun stuff. In response to my clarification, which needed to be done, Wulfgar set out to dissect my argumnet, which is fair, since I am doing the same.

The terrorists cannot win militarily, period.

Incorrect assumption, the first. They can win militarily if they can escalate the conflict beyond the reach of our resources or our resolve to commit immoral acts. We can win this thing today, by nuking the whole of Iraq. Is that winning? Are the bleeding and deseased remainders afforded the sweet sweet gravy of democracy? Or have we simply succeeded in destroying what Saddam could not? Yay us.

Okay, Wulfgar says that I am wrong that the terrorists cannot win militarily, because they can escalate the conflict beyong the reach of our resources. I suppose he means that they are going to be bringing in 10-20 armored divisions, plus a few thousand Migs and Sukhois. Ain't gonna happen. They don't exist. In fact, when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" he was technically correct. There were no organized enemy units above the platoon level. There was no functioning chain of command that could coordinate the attacks nor were there any organized supply and support structures available to draw resources like replacements or supplies. Now, after April 2003, the enemy changed, but it wasn't the one we went into in March of that year, they were gone.
As to us committing immoral acts, I disagree that there is any organized policy to commit immoral acts. In fact, there have been prosecutions of our soldiers for violating the rules of war. Not to say that they don't exist, but that is also not to say that they are condoned, much less encouraged. As to the only way to win being nukes, I disagree, as I have said before about the utility of nukes. So in review, my statement that the terrorists cannot drive us from the battlefield still stands. One down.

Second Wulfgar said: Incorrect assumption, the second. They can win by getting us to behave as immorally as they themselves do, or more immorally that the American people (who last I checked, still control our government) are willing to accept. They want to win, and are willing to kill every man, woman and child in Iraq (or elsewhere) to do that. We can win, if we’re willing to do the same (and impoverish our own while doing so). A victory of will? Putting oneself on the inevitable path of destruction, to claim a specious point?

So, I think that Wulfgar leaps here to the idea that we will act as immorally as the terrorists. I guess then, he agrees with the idea that as long as we do not act immorally then we will win. Well, I am in agreement with that. He says that we can win if we kill every man woman and child just like the terrorists do, thereby consigning us to the level of the terrorists. I am sure that this is just anger, and do not believe that anyone (rational) believes that we are the same as the terrorists. Here is an alternate version of victory that differs from his: We establish a functioning Iraqi democratic government that uses its own security apparatus, and relies on the intelligence gleaned from their fellow citizens who are not afraid of the terrorists, nor willing to tolerate them, and their attacks on innocents. Again with the specious points. I am beginning to wonder if that is just a macro. Oh well, two down.

Next: They make attacks that accomplish little militarily, but are designed to demoralize the American public.

Incorrect assumption, the third. Which is more demoralizing, the thought that the media might show us bad stuff? Or the sure and certain knowledge that our own government, supposedly of, by and for the people, lied us into a war, and continues to do so until this very day? You can blame the Islamofascists for lying to us about their strength, but I will be far more horrified that my government did the same exact fricking thing. There was absolutely no reason, regarding national defense, that we invaded Iraq. None.

Okay, let's take this one step at a time. It's not that the tv shows us bad stuff, it is the context. Are 30 new hospitals, 200 new schools, clean water, worth a suicide bomber that kills children? Apparently not. It is only in the lack of perspective that the media fails us. It's not their fault. If it bleeds it leads always sells more commecials than real progress. As to the "Lied us into war," we have already had that discussion. here. I realize I may be unique, but I still believe that there is a difference between a lie and a mistake. As to the reason regarding national defense, I think that it shows a failure of imagination. I wrote about that here. In fact, I would argue that Wulfgar's argument reinforces my original one that we can only be defeated by ourselves.

Lastly, (I know, you are thinking thank God) he said "And you still haven’t proven what you claim to be true …
that claiming that the CIC is incompetant is a support for the terrorists. It isn’t. For your argument to work, you must be able to show this, clearly. You can’t. Claiming that we have an incompetant CIC is quite obviously *NOT* a support for terrorists. It’s a statement of opinion (in my mind, fact). It doesn’t provide any foundation, at all, for your further argument that iopposition to Bush = encouragement of terrorists. None. Notta. Zip.

A question: When you swear alligience, do you swear to a king, or a flag and a country for which it stands? Just askin’? ‘Cause if you posit that discent against the CIC is anti-American, we might as well have a fricking king. Get it, yet?"

Well, it's getting late so I may just skim this argument, although I should admit that Wulfgar deserves full and serious consideration. My assertion is that the terrorists have hope that they can persuade us to throw in the towel. Attacking the President is as American as apple pie, or chop suey for that matter. But if you attack the President, whether Bush or Clinton or whoever, you have to acknowledge that our enemies also attack the President, and you need to seperate yourself from them. How do you do this. Ah, there's the rub isn't it. It requires a deft and intelligent approach that is difficult, as it should be. Otherwise, you start to sound like the country's enemies.

And, when I swore all of my oaths, they were to the Constitution of the United States and the lawful orders of the President, and the officers appointed over me. During our military law classes, we are taught that it is illegal to obey an illegal order, but you better be right, becuase if you aren't you will pay the price.

I look forward to Wulfgar's response.

9-11, Freedom and RVs

As my son and I were returning from Eugene on Sunday, we were listening to the radio, in order to help dispel the miasma of Eastern Oregon and Central Washington. About the time that the attacks on the Trade Towers happened four years ago, a commercial came on that talked about remmebering that tragic day, and the importance of our freedom. Then the speaker went on to say that the best way to have freedom is with a new RV from somebody or another.
My son and I looked at each other in absolute shock. Then he said, that the obvious reason that we were attacked on 9-11 was because we have RVs!.
Tasteless, absolutely, but you have got to admire the chutzpa of the American marketers who can use 9-11 to sell RVs. Or, you can be disgusted. I suppose that I was a little of both.

Heh

Nuff said.

Anyone else getting tired of this?

A long time ago, I learned that if you want to kill the king, kill the king. Instead, the Democrats seem intent on causing his death from a thousand cuts. However, they seem rather petty and inconsequential. Somehow, you have got to admire the luck of Bush in the face of his enemies' inept performance.

Posse comitatus anyone?

This is why active duty troops are different from the Guard. But, if the Guard is federalized, are they any different from the active duty folks?

Boy, is this right on

Good points, and I will admit, that I have been harsh on the mayor and the governor, but I have made a donation to help the victims of the government both, state and federal.

Bush's vacation

Last night on the Late Show with David Letterman, Dave was joking about Bush's vacation again. I just don't understand what the fascination is with Bush taking a vacation.
Now, when I go on vacation, I leave the cell phone behind, don't get any email, and certainly don't get my mail. If someone has to get ahold of me, it is for a really big reason.
However, when Bush goes on vacation, does he really get away from anything? Anywhere any President goes, he is in constant communication with everyone. I used to have a youg commo soldier who was selected to work the White House Communications team. I saw him after, and he told me that they spend so much time on the road, that they only select single soldiers, the stress being too much for the married ones. They go to an area 4 weeks in advance to do a site survey, then set up comms that are redundant to the nth degree.
So, I guess my question is, "Are Presidential vacations really vacations, or is this just another cheap shot?"

How to fix disaster response

Good article about what we need to do to correct the next disaster. All of his ideas are easily doable, but will probably not be done. Why? Because the entrenched petty power trips of the bureaucracies are not going to allow anyone to usurp their authority.
I have long thought that the Army needs a division sized equivalent of Military Police and Civil Affairs experts that could be emplpoyed either in Iraq or, here at home in the event of a Katrina sized disaster. The other thing that needs to be done, is allow the President to order federal efforts before the States have requested help.
Perhaps I am biased, but I really do believe that the professionalism of the modern military can provide immediate assistance better than any other organization, while at the same time maintaining self discipline to recognize that they are servants to the Constitution, and not the guys with the most guns.
Unfortunately, the Democrats seem to be using this as an exercise to get Bush, and the Republicans will go into a bunker mentality that will prevent any meaningful changes. My advice: Don't live anywhere near a place that is going to need immediate federal help in the future.

Are Iraqi Insurgents/terrorists/SOBs evil?

Interesting moral question posed here. They are not soldiers, nor are they warriors. Both of those groups understand taht the application of violence must be controlled, deliberate and carefully directed. This is not to deny that mistakes do happen. But there is a difference between dropping a bomb on the wrong house while trying to target killers, and deliberately killing innocent people, just to sway American public opinion.
The interesting thing for me about the anti-war effort, is the lack of acknolwedgment that the terrorists are attacking solciers and civilians, but they are really targeting us. They know they cannot win on the battlefield, or at the ballot box. They can only win if we leave before the job is done. I really don't see how that is a more just moral position.

Democrats and the 21st Century

An interesting confluence of ideas have come before me in the last 24 hours. First George Will poses some of the problems for the loudest voices of the Democrats. Essentially, he argues that they are starting to become the equivalent of the John Birch Society in their rabid desire to avoid intelligent thinking. Relying instead on accusations of treason, greed, avarice, and, well, just about all of the seven deadly sins.
When you think about it, who in the Democratic Party is getting all of the press at the moment? Think Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, MoveOn, Howard Dean, and Chuck Schumer. Where are the Harold Fords, Obama Baraks, and Evan Bayhs of the Party? Kos seems to be doing his part to rope in all of the moderate voices of the Democratic Party, and he is not alone.
Which brings me to the other branch of the confluence, heretofore referenced previously. (Sometimes, when I feel like a jerk, I write like a lawyer.) Dave and Matt seem to be using the same page, although I think that Matt really is going somewhere that Dave is not, and Matt seems a might confused as to why Dave isn't following.
Conservatism, as a political theory is often labeled racist, anti-woman, anti-poor, etc., but that is not the true definition of conservatism, any more than liberals are all anti-American, -white male, -business, etc. If you consider the original theories of these two necessary positions, you might find that they are not incompatible. We need liberals to provide the motive force to change society. And we need conservatism to keep the forces from being taken too far in the wrong direction.
In the letters to the editor in our advertising supplement called the Missoulian, someone is saying that Conservatives were the ones who opposed the Equal Rights Act. True, but I think that the letter writer is conflating conservatives with Republicans. After all, the majority of people who opposed that Acts passage were Democrats, and the majority who supported it were Republicans. So, you can't say that all Democrats are liberal nor that all Republicans are conservative. And while I'm on it, can someone explain to me how liberal is supposed to mean that you are tolerant of other views, except Republicans, Libertarians, white males, etc.? I have listened to Air America on occasion for my much oft stated reason that we should consider all opinions. Randi Rhodes seems to be the equivalent of a broadcasting Brown Shirt. Al Franken and Janine Garofolo are the headliners, and seem to be conducting some sort of marathon for stutterers, they are so angry.
This is not to excuse the Pat Roberts et al. who are on the right. But if you argue that the Frankens, Kos and Air America are just a reaction to those on the Right, you are agreeing that you are no different from them, if anything, less artful.
I quit going to horror movies after Exorcist 2. Mostly because I realized that the moviemaker was manipulating me especially through the use of music, to try and keep me frightened. Ever since then, I have resented anyone trying to manipulate me through fear. For me, political parties are just like the movie makers. I suppose that like any marketing campaign, you always need new and improved attention getters to keep the public buying your products.
The future is going to belong to the group who realize that the person they are promoting is more important than the party. Whoever selects intelligent, thoughtful people as their candidates, (Those who can say 'I disagree with you, but can understand the basis for your opinion') will be the party of the future.
With the greater access to information from cable and the Internet, individuals will have more power, and organized group think collectives will lose it.
Give me a man or woman of principles and character, and not just some telegenic sock puppet, and even if I don't agree with all of their positions, I will probably vote for them because I am sure that they will make the right choices for the greater good. Don't tell me that Democrats or Republicans have my best interests at heart, because I am cynical to that line of reasoning. My experience has taught me that they are only interested in their own power, not that of me, my community or my country.

Hiroshima and the First Weapon of Mass Destruction

I just finished watching the Discovery channel show about the first use of Atomic weapons. I am always interested that the numbers of casualties are promoted to show the immoral use of the weapons that ended WWII. It seems to be only rarely mentioned that more people died in the firebombings of Tokyo or for that matter Dresdem.
I supposed the reason why atomic weapons are considered so horriffic is that their effects are accomplished by only one plane and one bomb. Makes it easy to form the mental picture I suppose, than trying to imagine 1000 B-29s at the same time. But, are the causalties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki really due more consideration im memoriam than the victims of the Tokyo raids which were done by a 1000 plane raid?
I did learn something interesting, that the Japanese military considered their use to not be as significant as the civilian leadership.
Maybe, it's because nuclear weapons are really political weapons, with very little real military value. Generally speaking, military use of nukes is only justifiable as a last resort; because you were unable to stop your enemy in a conventional maner.
It probably doesn't fit into our cultural image (Think Dr. Strangelove) that the military is hot to use the weapons given to them. Although I think that they would if ordered, I would be surprised if they thought it would accomplish much.

Kerry, Democrats and Directions

The first step to solving a problem, is to correctly identify what the problem is. Otherwise you spend all of your time trying to solve something that is not the problem.
I know that after 2002 and 2004, the Democrats felt that they were not getting their message out to the public. Always ask the question: What else could it be? And the answer could be that their message did get out, but was rejected.
Part of the problem for the Democrats is that they are not really a cohesive and easily indentifiable group. In fact, many of the core constituents of the Democratic party are in direct opposition to each other. When Howard Dean ranted about the Republicans being a party of white men and Christians, he may have been onto something. Under his view, gender, race and income are predeterminates for how you will vote. Therefore, there is no reason to persuade them, because they are unpersuadeable.
For instance, Democrats are the party that champions the poor, and protects the environment. Well, if you are poor, one of the problems is that you can't afford housing. Why? because the cost of lumber is so high. (Although, it has been dropping recently) Why is the cost of lumber high? Because it is difficult to get into the woods to cut it, thanks to law suits, environmental regulations, etc., thereby also depriving poor lumber cutters and mill workers with jobs.
How about the cost of food? Environmental groups want to end subsidies for ranchers on public land. If you do, does that not drive up the costs of doing business, and therefore, the cost of food? An example of this conflict, was the opening of ANWR. Democratic environmentalists were opposed, but the trade unions were in favor because of the jobs that would be created.
Another example, African Americans give their support to the Democrats at almost 90%. Yet most are also heavily involved in the religious aspects of their lives. How does that comport with the Democrat's position on abortion?
I could go on and on, but I hope you get my point.
So, what are the Democrats to do in light of these conflicts. I think that the first thing they have to do is to wake to the fact that it is now the 21st Century, and we are no longer living in Dickensonian England, with Bob Cratchitt slaving for the evil Republican Scrooge.
In the next 20 years, the Baby Boom population is going to be retiring. When they do, there will be a shortage of workers. When you have a shortage of workers, their pay offers will go up, along with their choices for employment. The future for the American worker is not going to be a union job at a major manufacturing plant. It is instead going to be self employed independent contractors, who will be able to bid for jobs based on their own rational perceived self interest. And when they have that first good year as an independent contractor, they will bump smack dab into the realities of the tax system. My wife, the good Democrat, becomes Republican around April 15th of every year because she is an independent contractor as a paralegal.
Democrats and Republicans have the opportunity to help these people, but neither at the moment seems to even be aware of this coming issue. Whoever can support these future entreprenuers are going to be the victors in future political struggles. It is not enough for Democrats to rely on past achievements. They need to answer the question that these younger workers are going to ask: What have you done for me lately?

Lunatics against the war

I'm not sure what to make of this. Okay, Kidder was running around in what could only politely be called a "psychotic state." and now wants to continue in opposition to the war.
With friends like this . . .

My ideal Candidate for Public Office

Cincinnatus.

Okay, most people don't even remember who he was, plus, he's dead, which is probably a disqualifier, and he was Roman, which is a definite disqualifier, since he doesn't live in the district.
In case you forgot, Cinncinatus was the man called from his plow to lead Rome with autocratic powers until the danger had passed. Afterwards, he returned power to the Senate, and went home to his plow.
Thomas Jefferson once said that "any man who would seek public office is not worthy of it." This from a guy who really wanted to be President, and eventually did become only the third one in our history.
Today, politicians seem to feel the need to work their way up through the ranks. First a school board, then a city councilman, then a state representative, then statewide office followed by national service as either a congressman or a senator.
The first person asked "What are your qualifications?" who can answer, "I am above the minimum age, I reside in the legislative district that I am running from, and I have no legal restrictions that would keep me from serving," has got my vote.
For some reason, we always assume that only people who have worked their way through the system are eligible to serve. Why do we not select those people that have succeeded in life, either professionally, or personally, who assume the duty of serving their fellow citizens, and would gladly go back to their own lives after their service is over?
I know that the argument for a professional class of politicians is that they have knowledge in how to make the system work. However, it has always been my experience that I have gotten more done when I did not know that I couldn't do something. Reminds me of when I was 12 and in the Boy Scouts. Up to that time, I could easily draw two cards to fill an inside straight. It was only after I read a book on the statistical improbablility of that happening, that I was never able to do it again.
Every political entity has a staff that has been in residence for quite a while. They can assist the politician, but they are hindered in their approach to new and creative ideas.
A profesional politician is suspect in my mind, because their own election or reelection becomes more important than the service to their fellow citizens. I would like to support a politician who if elected could say, "Okay, but just for a little while." Or, if they lost, could say "thank God, now I can go back to my life."
I always wanted to run for governor on the platform that if I was elected, I would not go anywhere near Helena. Unfortunately, it is the law that the Governor has to reside in Helena. Helena. Have you ever been there? Why on earth would anyone voluntarily live there? Okay, maybe if you had a pre-release center, the convicts wouldn't have a choice, but to voluntarily want to go there? Right off the bat, you are suspect in your sanity, in my mind anyway.
Washington is even worse. If you ever spent anytime in the DC area, you understand why Congress takes August off. The crowds, the lack of open space, and the egomaniacs who reside there do not make it any kind of place that I would want to live in.
When I was in the Army, you could always tell the General Staff bastards that came from the Pentagon. They had an attitude that just reeked of condecension, even though we were on the front lines, and they were safely ensconced in their protective cocoons of self importance.
I saw it in the politicians that were sent to Washington as well. There were so many toadies who were only too willing to bow and scrape before someone because they had Congressman or Senator in front of their father's name. The worst thing was that the politicians seemed to assume that it was their inherent right to have these toadies. Someone who has already succeeded in life is less lilely to think that they are more than they know that they are.
So, let's hear it for the common man or woman, who would serve if necessary, but has already had a full life, and doesn't need the headache if they aren't selected.

Terror and Airlines

At last, the TSA is maybe coming to their senses. I won't believe it until I see it though. The problem with the TSA is they are trying to close the barn door after the horse has left. The possibility of any terrorist reenacting 9-11 is less than 10%. Why? Because we as passengers were always taught to cooperate with the terrorists until we landed in the Middle East, where one member of the passenger list would be singled out for death, then we would all be let go, and the terrorists released to become hailed as heroes in their hometowns.
The change actually began on 9-11. Remember Paul Beemer? He was the one who said "Let's roll" during the hijack over Pennsylvania. They already realized that cooperation was fatal, and weren't going to go along with them anymore.
How about the shoe bomber, he was stopped first by the passenger seated beside him. All of us are aware that the rules have changed. We are no longer going to acquiesce in these type of situations.
It reminds me of when the Red Army Faction was active in Germany. After each attack, we would go through enhanced security for about 6 months, then when we were fully relaxed, there would be another attack. The advantage was always with the terrorists.
If you wanted, I could list about a hundred ways to attack cities and other areas of concentrated people, but I won't because there is no reason to give an idea that did not exist in their minds to begin with. In our society, we are inherently vulnerable. We cannot stop attacks here at home from a determined enemy. What we need is an ability to develop intelligence about their activities and thus the ability to thwart them.
In the meantime, be sure to take off your shoes, and suffer the fact that you are next on the list to be inspected, even though you are just ahead of a guy wearing a Khaffiya.

How to lose the War in Iraq

Peters puts it in better terms than I have ever been able to. The whole point of the terrorist/insurgent/patriot/dirty rottesn SOBs is to get the home front to capitulate. If you want metrics to measure success, the opinion polls show that they are succeeding in their objectives.
On a side note, I met Peters during Desrt Storm. He was on special attachment to the General Staff, because of whatever book he had just written. Like most tankers, he was on the small side, big guys tend to have less time to react to the bump and grind that goes with cross country travel in a 70 ton taxi. I found it odd though, that he was not a very impressive charachter. Seems it is easier to create heroes in fiction than make real people seem that way.

Lying Democrats and Stupid Republicans

Pretty good opinion piece here, although I disagree with his conclusion about Condi Rice (Coming clean, I would vote for her in a heartbeat if she ran for President).
I think that more than anything, it shows the reasons for the decline in party affiliation by the general public. We, the vast majority, are nothing more than the tools to get to power for both sides. They no longer attempt to inspire, or provide hope or leadership. (Okay, I do believe that Bush is providing leadership, since his poll numbers are so low, but on the other hand, he doesn't have to run again, and can do what he damned well pleases).
And politicians wonder why we are becoming so disconnected from the national parties.

Good evaluation of the moral questions of Iraq

I have always admired Christopher Hitchens for his intellect and moral clarity. Especially when I find out that he agrees with my positions.
I will admit, that I thought our intervention into the Balkans was a mistake. To my understanding, it was a civil war, and they have all the logic of a bitter divorce (I hate you so much, but I never want you to forget me, so I will make your life a living hell).
But, I think that the point of Hitchen's piece was that supposed moral opposition to the war is based on partisan politics. Take Ms. Sheehan, who is camped outside of Crawford Texas, demanding to meet with the President so she can chew him out. Disregard that she had already met with him, or that her story seems to have been changed by her new found friends. Suppose for a minute, that the mother in question wanted to praise President Bush for trying to bring democracy to Iraq. Would that get any coverage? I don't think so, because it has happened.
This brings me to one of the trite comments so often said by the anti-war crowd. "If you believe in the war, why aren't you over there fighting it?" Seems to me that the proper retort is, "If you believe that homelessness is a problem in this country, why aren't you taking homeless people into your house?"
Both questions are designed to hurt the opponent, rather than to raise legitimate issues.

Interesting Arab take on Iraq

Very interesting article, (although a caveat, because it is written in English, it has a different audience targeted, than if it was in Arabic).

For all the Bush and Clinton haters

Former President Bill Clinton recently explained that he too agrees that withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake. "Eighteen-hundred Americans have given their lives. Thousands of Iraqis have died trying to give their country a future.

"So where we are now, it's important to try to continue this effort to train the security forces and the military forces, which the administration and our military have undertaken. We have to try to make this work," Clinton said, according to Agence France Presse.

Maybe, we are in a mess, although I don't think so. Just seems to me that Clinton is acting more statesmanlike, than many others are in this country.

Murder vs. Killing

Matt of Left in the West posed an interesting philosophical question that quickly became hijacked. The question is: Are all killings murder?
Suppose for a moment, that someone says that they are coming to kill me, and they arrive at my door with a rifle, and shoot and miss me. If I fire back and kill them, is that murder? Obviously no, since it would be in self defense. But what if they haven't shot yet? If I still suffer from apprehension, is that not still self defense?
What if they say they are going to kill me, and I think that they have a weapon, but they take no active steps in the furtherance thereof, and I see them on the street and shoot them because they said they were going to kill me. Ah, there's the rub.
Another question, suppose that police officers have received a report of a child abduction and are in hot pursuit. The offender runs a red light, with the officers directly behind them, who, unfortunately, collide with a minivan, killing the mother and three children inside. Is that murder?
Part of the problem stems from the misinterpretation of the biblical prohibition of thou shall not kill. This is incorrect, since it really says thou shall not commit murder. There were plenty of situations where killing was authorized, homosexuality, adultery, sassing your parents, just to name a few, so that killing was okay, in response to another wrong. (Okay, I am not justifying this sort of action, merely reporting.)
This leads into the hijacking of Matt's thread. If you are a soldier in Iraq, and receiving fire from a building, and you fire back and accidently strike an innocent bystander, is that murder? I think not, since it is much like the police chase above. Murder requires the deliberate intention to unjustifiably kill. Accidental deaths are no less traumatic for the victims and their families, but it is a different motive from intentionally killing innocents for the soldier.
Many of the comments seem to focus on the thought that we in the US do not consider it murder if people of a darker skin color are killed. This sems to be a veiled implication that we are racist. I think that the evidence would go the other way. For instance, the failed operation in Somalia began as a humanitarian mission and changed when the Somalis who were trained by Al Quaeda began attacking UN troops.
As I have said before, we tend to overlook murder by people of another skin color, so long as they are only killing people of the same color. Think Rwanda, Darfur for example.
I knew a pacifist once, who said that if someone was going to kill her and her family, her belief required her to not resist, thereby showing the moral courage of her actions (or lack of actions). This is fine, so long as the killers have any sort of conscience. But if they don't, what good does dying really do?
Is it murder to protect yourself? I do not think so, and rely on the old dictum, that the right to self defense is never denied.
Oh well, drifting here, so I need to go to work.

MT GOP and out of staters

Matt at Left in the West, points out that the Montana GOP is attacking him and David Sirota for being non natives who are trying to run the state. I am disappointed in these kinds of attacks because they seem to be less interested in discussing ideas, than ad hominem attacks. I've always said, that if you can't attack the idea, attack the messenger.
I suppose that they are basing their attacks on the feelings of many so called "Native Montanans." In a way, I can sympathize with them, that before we became the playground of the rich and famous and poor and crazy, we used to provide good jobs in the natural resources extractive industries. In fact, in the 1950s, we were number five in the national rankings of states for personal earnings.
Go tell a man that the job that he had been doing for years and was providing him a good income for his family was environmentally unacceptable. Then when he finds out that he was lied to, when the jobs that were supposed to replace his earned a mere pittance from what he had been earining, and you get a certain amount of resentment of those who changed the rules of the game based on their experiences from whence they came.
This is not to defend the extractive industries, because they were unsustainable at any level for any length of time. However, it still doesn't necessarily ease the transition for the former well paid worker.
As a disclaimer, I must note, that I was born in Virginia to second generation Montanans while my father was serving in the Army, (a very traditional Montanan activity) and that all of my siblings were born in Havre.
I suppose that the real point of this posting, is that the best definition of a true Montanan, is that when you are driving into the state, and see the sign that says "Welcome to Montana" you feel at home within less than a tenth of a mile, even though you have to drive 450 miles to get to your door.
Let's welcome all Montanans to the discussion, and quit trying to exclude some whose opinions we disagree with, even if we can't deal with their argument.

Roberts and Roe

I am fascinated that the nomination of Judge Roberts for the vacancy on the US Supreme Court seems to hinge on the issue of abortion. Why on earth does this really take such a preeminent role in the decisions of the courts?
To me, abortion is the classic moral dilemma, where good people can come down on both sides. Personaly, I do believe that a fetus is a seperate and distinct person, having its own unique DNA, and is not just a part of a woman's body. Sure, she should have the ability to choose, but in 98% of all abortions, she did have the choice before she became pregnant.
Conversely, I do not think that the government has any business telling her what to do about her pregnancy, or for that matter, much of anything else. Nothing makes a man more pro-choice, than when his girlfriend of the moment lets him know that she is "late."
Roe v. Wade is settled law, albeit, settled in the worst way. The history of the decision, as written by Woodward, illustrates Blackmun's unethical individual research, flawed logic, and incoherent reasoning. Even so, suppose that the Supreme Court decided tomorrow, that abortions no longer are cosntitutionally protected. Would that mean that abortions would end? Maybe in Alabama, but not necessarily in the Northeastern US, or even here in Montana.
I think that one of the reasons why abortion takes up so much time in these nomination hearings, is the awareness by the proponents of Roe in the weakness of their case. Suppose for a minute that some judge says that the 14th Amendmnet does not apply to women. A legally plausible theory, that is politically impossible. No one would seriously say that women should have their franchise stripped from them. Yet, if someone questions overturning Roe, there is a hue and cry throughout the land.
Why not select judges who say that the law is the law, even if I don't agree with it. If you did, you would never have overturned Dredd Scott, or Plessy v. Ferguson, but there is still the rememdy of legislative action if the decision was morally wrong.
In the current state of the law, every question becomes a candidate for the Supreme Court because they are so inconsistent in applying pronciples to issues. A great example are the two cases that came out of Michigan, where affirmative action selection is wrong at the undergrad level but fine for the law school. Well, what about a business program, can they discriminate at the MBA level, but not at the undergrad level? And what really havppens when after 25 years pass?
Give me a justice who follows the law and I will be happy, because the majority can force the cowardly legislaoures to do the right thing.
Now all we need to do is to elect courageous members of the legislature.

Wow

This is a long article, but it proves again the thesis that no prophet is honored in his own land. Daniel Patrick Moynian will always be my hero, because he was intellectually honest. Unfortunately, he was punished for that. If only we had dropped our blinders and actually understood what he was saying, the world might be a different place.

Great Link

Follow the link to a great telling of what is going on in Iraq. If you are pro-war, it will give you pause. If you are anti-war it will give you pause. Ain't the truth confusing?

On Student Loans

Interesting assessment of the current financial aid situation. I used student loans for my undergrad back in the 70's, and avoided them for my Masters and law degree mostly because I hated dealing with the beauracracy.
One of the problems that I see with the cost of a college education is that there are no pressures to constrain costs. But suppose that Pell Grants and student loans would be denied to any school that raises tuition at more than twice the rate of inflation. That would certainly put a damper on the perpetual spiral of increasing tuition, which is really denying middle class kids an opportunity to study.
Of course, higher education is a unique situation, where Presidents are selected because of their educational accomplishments more than their managerial abilities.
More proof of the differing types of intelligence in life.

Bad and Good News from Iraq

Read the link to Strategypage, but in short, there will be more violence as the former regime elements are froze out of what they consider to be their rightful place. (Overlords of the less human Shia). However, the Iraqi army is becoming more competent, which is more of an accomplishment than most people realize.
Many civilians seems to think that training a soldier only involves how to wear a uniform, march, salute, and shoot. The reality of modern warfare involves teaching them to think. A rigid heirarchy is prone to breaking, but a flexible, thinking organization is resilient and more effective. The interesting thing about the article, is that the Iraqi junior officers are so willing to learn how the Americans do things. If we can train them in only tactics and techniques, we will only be half way home. The trick will be to train them in values. i.e. Loyalty to the civilian leadership, integrity and self discipline.
One of the greatest threats to the Iraqi success will be the elimination of the ususal suspects in failures of the Middle East - theft, corruption, nepotism, etc. By making the Iraqi Army into a meritcracy, they will provide the model for the civilian government to follow. After all, can there be anything more disheartening to a fledgling democracy, than the belief that you can never get what you want from your government because you lack the right connections, or that your baksheesh is insufficient.
Well, here is to hope. May they succeed beyond my wildest dreams.

More Bush Lied

I know that because this came from the Washington Times, that it is deemed less than credible. However, nothing that I have found seems to contradict it. The whole Plame kerfluffle seems to be an inside the Beltway distraction, especially when there are so many more pleasant things to be doing during these beautiful summer days.
I sometimes wish that a Democrat had been elected instead of Bush, and he had done the exact same things. I think that the Left in this country would be solidly behind a Gore or a Kerry, if they were doing the same thing, and I believe that the Right would recognize the threat to our country by terrorism, and support the President in those endeavors.

What's the Matter with . . .

This article does a pretty good analysis of the change in economic growth between the Red and Blue states. He mentions the book, "What's the Matter with Kansas" in showing that in America, more people want to be rich, even though they are not, than want to hate the rich.
One thing about the Kansas book though, why hasn't anyone wrote a book about "What's the matter with Washington D.C., New York, Massachussettes," etc?
Washington D.C. typically votes among the highest for Democrats. Yet their schools are failing even though the per capita education spending is the top or near the top of all of the states. They have the tightest gun control legislation, yet used to rate the highest in per capita murder statistics. The District has one of the highest per capita tax rates of the country, yet is populated with the largest percentage of poor people, (mostly based on white flight to VA and MD).
If repeating the same acts and expecting different results, (adherance to the Democratic Party) is the definition of insanity, maybe that is the best explanation for wy the District will never be a state.

Evolution and Religion

The Catholic Church now says that it accepts evolution but with the caveat that it cannot ignore that there was a guiding hand. I find the whole argument amusing on both sides.
First, the fundamentalists who believe every word of the Bible is true, except for the first miracle at Canaa, where Jesus didn't turn water into wine, but rather grape juice. To them, the world was created in six days. Now imagine, God is telling Moses how the universe was started. "Okay, about 15 billion years ago, it all started with this big bang, from which all matter originated and . . . " Moses, who possessed at best Bronze age technology, asks, "Wait a minute, what's a billion?"
You see the problem here. Is it any less miraculous to take 15 billion years, versus six days? I am amazed that anyone would want to limit God and his capabilities by saying that it was only six days.
But to examine evolution, 15 billion years is really too short for just random chance isn't it? I mean, the first stars had to form, fuse hydrogen into helium, and a few heavier elements, then go supernova, and repeat the process several times to create the mix of elements that presently exist. How long is the shortest life of a star?
On our particular level, I have to wonder about the evolutionary value of appreciation for beauty.
Drive the Going to the Sun road at sunrise, and you will have the equivalent of a religous experience. Why do we appreciate that? The fact that appreciation of beauty is so widespread appears to discount the randomness of a genetic mutation that would appreciate it.
But hey, I am just a dumb lawyer, driving down the highway of life with the top down and the tunes loud, having a great time.

Finally, a start

At last, someone from the Islamic community is taking a stand. 'Bout damned time.

Understanding Islamo-facism

Good article that explains why fanatics who behead innocent people are not our fault, but are evil in their own right.

Bush Lied!???

Another of a series of letters to the editor at the Missoulian, lead off with the screed that Bush lied about WMDs. Is it just me, or does this make no sense. Seems to me, that a lie is to knowingly make a false statement. How is it that Bush lied, if the Democratic leadership, including Senator Kerry, also said that there were WMDs in Iraq. Further, didn't Saddam do everything to perpetuate the idea that he had WMDs (getting large shipments of atropine, handing out chemical warfare suits, etc.).
Are these letters legitimate expressions of policy, or the cynical manipulation of facts in order to further a political agenda? Going further, could someone explain to me, how, if your enemy has the same objective as you do, (withdrawl of American troops) you are not in support of the people who are killing our soldiers? This is not to question anyone's patriotism, but I would appreciate an answer that makes sense as to why anyone would be in agreement with mass murderers and terrorists.

The Michelson-Morley Awards

I posted my silly physics question Physics questions and recieved two excellent answers that didn't answer the question at all. David, had a wonderful answer that didn't even come close, and Rocky, managed to turn the answer into a totally different question involving pyrotechnics and collision effects.
This got me to thinking, what if there was a contest to answer (or not answer) actual questions. Creativity would be rewarded, and snarky answers encouraged.
So, I came up with the first Michelson-Morley awards. In case you don't know who they are, these two gentlemen set out to prove that there was an ether in space which would transmit light. They set out to test their theory, and failed miserably. It wasn't too long after that when Einstein came up with his theory of Relativity, which destroyed the concept of ether forever as a medium for the transmission of light.
The rules are simple:
1. Incorrect answers only. If you have the right answer and post it, you will be disqualified.
2. Creativity is a must. We always try to use creativity to solve problems, now use it to make a bigger mess of a problem.
3. Not answering the question is also acceptable.

Without further ado, here is this weeks question:
A bumblebee is aerodynamically incapable of flight. If you examine the mass of the insect, wing size, wing speed, it just cannot be done. So, how does it fly?

Answers will be collected until the 11th, and evaluated by our esteemed panel of judges, (me). Be the first on your block to get the magic Michelson-Morley award, amaze your friends, brag at a bar, and have fun!
I will also be accepting proposed future questions at my e-mail: seschenbac@yahoo.com

Founding Fathers

As a child growing up, my education about the American Revolution consisted mostly of the myths of idolatry about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and others. My children, on the other hand, were raised on the failings of these great men: How they were slave owners while they sought freedom, lawyers who would deny the rights they sought to those who did not own property or possess the proper Y chromosone.
Looking back with time, which gives you a perspective on human charachter, I am even more amazed at what those fine gentlement managed to accomplish, warts and all. If you think about it, these men were the elites of the colonies. They were risking their all for the chance to give more to others. If you were to predict future behavior based on rational self interest, none of these men would have been listed as the fathers of an ideal that would revolutionalize government.
When the Constitution was signed, someone said that they pledged their "lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" in support of something that had never before been done in their time: Raising the individual as a sovereign, instead of some inherited right to dominate others. As radical a concept as there ever was. In fact, they had more than enough opportunities to turn away from the ideal, and to go with what must have been their own base interests. George Washington, at the time of victory at Yorktown, was invited by some young colonels to assume a military dictatorship of the new country. Luckily, he rebuked them for even bringing it up, and therefore managed to avoid strangling the birth of a new country.
Americans are a strange lot, and you notice this more if you spend any time abroad. We are eternally optimistic, and at the same time, extremely self critical. We take it for granted that there will always be those who will complain about our country. In other cultures, this would be considered as treason, even if it is correct. So, when we complain about ourselves, in their minds, we must be even worse because they would never do the same thing.
In America, our strengths are our weaknesses, and our weaknesses are our strengths. We allow free speech, even if it is used against us. We have a military that is second to none, but unable to effectively and decisively cope with terrorists, like a secret police state would.
We are populated by the descendents of malcontents who were unwilling to stay for whatever reason and dared to go where no sane person would go to. (This includes the indigenous populations. Can you imagine 15,000 years ago, sitting around the campfire in Western Siberia, watching a group of crazy people heading over a land bridge to God only knows where and to what?) Those of us who live in the West, are the descendants of the craziest of the crazies. Yet, our mania is fueled by hope. Hope for a better future, for ourselves and our children. For a chance to be the real "Masters of our domain." The belief in America is the belief in hope. We owe it all to those magnificent and flawed human beings who placed an ideal above self interest, so that we may continue the experiment in Democracy that we know as the United States of America. May God continue to bless and keep her.

Campaign Finance Reform Consistency

Apparently, Rep. Meehan, a Democrat who was half of the Shays Meehan Campaing Finance reform legislation is trying to reign in 527 spending, much to the consternation of his fellow Democrats.
While I believe that restricting contributions is a violation of free speech, I do have to hand it to the Representative that he has been consistant. I admire that and wish that more of our elected representatives at all levels were to act on principles instead of political expediency.
Okay, Sarpy, I know that you are going to post the lyrics from Man of La Mancha again about Dreaming Impossible Dreams, but still I quest, to follow that star, no matter how hopeless, no matter how far!